If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Just the exact opposite Sarge. It is forever shifting. When I was in high school (or maybe Junior high) the media was warning about an impending ice age... That was quickly forgotten when the global warming hoax started. Now here we are talking about a "period of cooling". This is only unusual to libs who think things should stay the same all the time for everyone... Everywhere!

I've said this before... Our lifetime (or even the last 200 years) is a relative blip on the screen of time in regards to earth and its atmosphere. We didn't create it, we can't control it, and I don't believe we can destroy it.

Everyone and I mean everyone who puts out all these reports, studies, movies, documentaries etc... Has an agenda. In my opinion, it's all about money to most of them. Or the re-distribution of it.

The weather pattern is shifting all right... And so are the terms that the global warming... Er... Cooling...er...climate change folks use when referring to it.

As I said, Bill I have to run with the Phd's on the subject. I have had only one course back in the 60's from James Gallagher, an expert in the jet stream and polar climatology. He was postulating on the CO2 effects then. I have sat through numerous seminars on the subject while I was in the earth sciences department at Purdue. Before my life with dogs, I was also a member of Friends of the Pleistocene, an organization for geologists, geographers, and climatologists dedicated to the study of the effects of glaciation. But I do not claim this makes me an expert in the field. It just that I have rubbed elbows with the experts and I am confident in what they tell me is correct. At least, there is nothing in the counter arguements that make sense to me once you strip away the politics and/or economic viewpoints.

I think the article in question was talking about the fact that the word "denier" was used by the climate change proponents was an attempt to equate the non-proponents as "stupid" ... not the other way around.

I'm not convinced that what we know so far is "settled science".

The ice pack notation, is a piece of data amidst the recent history of a cooling trend. Both the cooling trend and the ice pack growth have been unanticipated according to the theories of warming that have been prominent. Right now it would appear that even proponents of the warming theory are puzzled by these pieces of data.

If you want to get defensive about the term denier, its your prerogative.

You seem to be missing the point on the ice extent data. The long term trend is down and the one year of data that you cite does not change the trend and it was not "unanticipated". As I pointed out in my last post, you want it both ways. You cling to single bits of data and inconsistencies to prove your point and discount my data if it does not follow a perfect linear path (i.e. cause and effect).

There you go again bringing up the "cooling trend". Despite being asked multiple times for this evidence of a cooling trend, no one has presented a reference. Back in post 93 you stated

Originally Posted by Gerry Clinchy

Zeus, I misspoke ... it is not in a cooling trend, but rather shows that warming has not increased in the last 15 years. The stat that I've seen posted was that 2012 was .11F higher, essentially negligible.

.
For a final answer today, which is it? A cooling trend or a slowing down in warming? Why is 0.11 not significant? If it happens 10 years in a row, would that be significant?

I certainly agree that there has been a slowing in temperature change despite consistent CO2 increases. This does not change the fact that 2001-2010 was the warmest decade on record since thermometer-based observations began.

There certainly is a chance that some climate feedback mechanism would balance out the effects of increasing CO2 concentration (i.e. negative feedback). Unfortunately, there is also a chance that there will be positive feedback and an acceleration of warming (i.e. tundra thawing methane release, increased water vapor, etc). You seem to want to hedge on some negative feedback loop to solve the problem. If you are wrong, we are screwed (well, at least our children and grandchildren are). I will hedge that we need to change our ways. If I am wrong we will have a market-based approach to control carbon emissions and many new energy and technology innovations for the economy of the future.

This is a duplicate of your post 95 on page 10. You even cited the thoroughly discredited "survey" of scientists again. You know, the one where I pointed out that you and I could have signed it and that Perry Mason, Michael J. Fox and one of the spice girls signed.

I directly responded to your misinformation way back in post 108. It still stands. If you want to argue science, find an author who is a scientist not a right wing propagandist.

HV....like most tree hugging nuts, you quote so called 'science' and then when someone points to research that disagrees with your science...you claim they are into propaganda....the fallacy in your assumption is that your so called scientist's are making a living putting out this data (as tainted as it may be) and my guy is making nothing....follow the money.....the science behind global warming is in fact tainted...do your own research and stop looking to prove your own hypothesis!

Swamp,
The survey you cite is complete junk. You and I could have signed it. It is no more of a valid "survey" than is a Fox or MSNBC online poll. The facts are the facts.

The article you have cited twice is by Mr. Agresti, a conservative blogger. Not a scientist with any expertise in climate. You have not presented one shred of legitimate science ever among all your posts in this thread. Just ramblings from an opinion writer.

You can go along thinking scientists are making all kind of money on this stuff without producing any evidence. You can also keep ignoring the well documented fact that the fossil fuel industries are making record profits and are funding most of the few deniers and the professional skeptics that are out there.

Here is an idea, you posted stuff twice and I refuted it directly. Instead of the baseless accusations you posted in #173, why don't you tell us why the survey you cited twice now has some legitimacy and why the temperature data you copied and pasted makes your case?

Also, while you are at it, please present some evidence that the scientific data, methods, analysis, and peer review process is tainted. I know believing this fits your alternative version of reality, but it sure would be nice if you could also post and explain some actual science to support your position.

HV....like most tree hugging nuts, you quote so called 'science' and then when someone points to research that disagrees with your science...you claim they are into propaganda....the fallacy in your assumption is that your so called scientist's are making a living putting out this data (as tainted as it may be) and my guy is making nothing....follow the money.....the science behind global warming is in fact tainted...do your own research and stop looking to prove your own hypothesis!

Swamp, please respond RATIONALLY to Henry V post, bring some real facts & science.
Then please do as you say and "FOLLOW THE MONEY" Independent science has overwhelmingly validated global warming. The few studies that deny it are almost universally funded by the Koch Brothers and their cronies

Swamp, please respond RATIONALLY to Henry V post, bring some real facts & science.
Then please do as you say and "FOLLOW THE MONEY" Independent science has overwhelmingly validated global warming. The few studies that deny it are almost universally funded by the Koch Brothers and their cronies

mjh, with all due respect, I refer you to the history of Prof. Michael Mann of Penn State Univ. and Dr. Phillip Jones of England. Prof. Mann did a study of the rings of trees to support his theory of global warming. He falsified his data and colluded with Dr. Jones to hide it from scientists who wanted to verify Dr. Mann's results. Put simply, they LIED in order to hide the fact that their conclusions were false. A FACT as you call them is that Dr. Jones admitted publically that global temperature during medieval times may have very well been as high or higher then than it is today, even though the internal combustion engine was not to be invented for centuries. As to cronies who postulate global warming, I would like to know of any scientists who have come to the conclusion of SIGNIFICANT global warming, who DO NOT owe their livilyhood to their ability to suck on the gov. tit and as a result come to conclusions which guarantee they can do so for their lifetime. I have given you two of the most prominant global warming advocates who have falsified data, refused to release that data until their e-mail accts were hacked and paid with gov. money. HV calls those who reject significant man made global warming as providing junk science. I have given you 2 examples of two prominant men who LIED in order to justify their conclusions to support man made gloval warming. You only offer the Koch brothers and call scientists who get grants from them as their cronies. Do YOU have any facts as to theses scientists lying? If so let me know.

I will now put this question to you. After the eruption of Mt. St. Helens, scientists put forth a theory of the time requirements for nature to recover as to plant, animal and microbial life, all of which proved to be totally wrong. Time has shown that nature recovered in a far shorter time than predicted. Due to the much higher complexity of global warming, I do believe that all predictions either pro or against, is shear speculation.

This thread itself is in the right place, a political forum and not a scientific forum. It appears to me that those who believe(support) global warming are those who believe in income redistribution and those who don't, reject the idea of global warming.

I don't think I have ever posted on any of the Global Warming threads so, here is my first and last thought on the subject. First, weather patterns change naturally. Second, with the amount of fossil fuels that are burned daily, it has to have an affect on the atmosphere. Now I'm done!

Last edited by Franco; 09-10-2013 at 02:39 PM.

The freedom to discriminate is essential to personal Liberty. Life in a free country is about being free to make choices based on your own criteria rather then one mandate by the government...Libertarian blogger

Swamp, please respond RATIONALLY to Henry V post, bring some real facts & science.
Then please do as you say and "FOLLOW THE MONEY" Independent science has overwhelmingly validated global warming. The few studies that deny it are almost universally funded by the Koch Brothers and their cronies

Why did you find more spelling errors or was the thought to deep for you? Your concept of "overwhelming Independent Science" is bunk....follow the money....just like our Congress all these so called experts are living on the proceeds of the Global Warming myth.